http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6187320/Snake-with-foot-found-in-China.html
Interesting. A snake that has a 'foot' (or hand or claw, depending how you might classify such things) growing out of its side.
Does this confirm, or deny, the theory of evolution?
On one hand it confirms it, since we can see a change in a life form from one generation to the next. (whether it can be passed on to another generation will probably have to wait for a full autopsy - and if it actually goes into the genome)
On the other hand, nearly all of these anomalies are very short lived and do not reproduce much (if at all). More common for snakes is to be born with two heads, which tend bite each other to death.
I wonder, with the amount of time we humans have had to observe and record such things, why we haven't seen more direct evidence of 'evolution in action' actually producing new viable species.
If someone can show me something I am unaware of... please do. Because personally, I can't see how random mutations of a single-celled lifeform, in a mere 3.5-4 billion years, can account for the diverse and interdependant life that we have on this planet.
You cant prove or disprove either God or Evolution so please stop using a bunch of books and articles you read to prove your case. Reading things might help make you smarter. but honestly you cant be taken seriously if you have no real life experience in either field yourself.
I'm more than willing to admit that there may be a god. In fact I find the idea of ceasing to exist when you die incomprehensible and frightening, so I actually hope there is one (assuming there is no hell).
However exploring the earth's past provides insight about climate change, habitability (or lackthereof) of other planets, the evolution of diseases and possible extinction hazards for ourself and other important parts of the ecosystem, etc. etc. I think that if we all just said "hey, it's magic" we limit our ability to progress as a civilization.
extinction is apart of nature. humans are eventually going to die off. Wether some unforseen God does it or We Do it. Or maybe just maybe. Nature decides its time for us to go.
It's about the quality of the time you have, I believe inquiries into the earth's and our own origin can lead to improvements of that time.
And that is why I've never been good with Greek loan words in Latin.
You have a very mistaken idea of what the word theory means when applied to science.
@AtkingTornado: Coelacanth is one of the accepted spellings. Coelocanth is another. When I was taking university courses, it was generally spelled Coelocanth.
'a part' - vs. - 'apart'.
Please, add the space if that is what you mean.
If you are saying that extinction is apart of (or from) nature, you are saying that extinction has nothing to do with the natural order of things as related to nature.
Look up the word 'apart'.
"Nature decides its time for us to go."
So, extinction is apart from nature, but nature decides when we are to go?
Your thinking is much less than critical - or logical.
I didn't have read the whole thread, so sorry if the following infos have been posted already:
1. one of the greatest biological found proofs for evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
2. the op put in question that random mutations may lead to an usefull evolution of lifeforms. now, this can be mathematically been proven, and it has been done already. every student of informatics (pls don't think about IT!) should have heared about algorithms/strategies "simulated annealing" and "evolutionary algorithms". for both concepts it can be shown that such a system will convert into a (global) optimum if it runs long enough (well, for some system only local optimas).
to simplify this: survival of the fitest + random mutations is enough to have an evolutionary progress. this can be proven quite simple as it is nothing else than a simple algorithm which has benn already analyzed and also empirically tested.
if someone want's to learn more about this, search for the keywords above or ask an mathematican or informatican (prefer one specialized in theoretical informatics).
The only thing that discussions like this reveal is that Man has barely evolved from the Stone Age.
We may have a greater knowledge and understanding, but underneath is still the primitive beast who cannot comprehend existence.
Are you a member of the thought police? Hey, if you want to ramble on about your ANTI anti God rheteric, please take it else where.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asQkegV_wk&feature=PlayList&p=33036AC8F01C2DDD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=69
Somehow I'm less than surprised this turned into a god/evolution debate.
The world would be a happier place if more people adopted a South Park approach to religious or anti-religious debates.
up to this point we could surly accept that both may exist together. evolution itself does not exclude the existence of god. the existence of god is put by other issues in question.
this is what happens if people start philosophing about things they don't know much about. denying possibilitie just because they don't know much of current state of science knowledge.
*sigh* half-knowledge is far more dangerous then knowing nothing.
here i am with you. but you didn't asked only questions above you've done much more by making quite exact conclusions based on far too less knowledge. pls don't feel offended. i know you only wanted to point out the questions but many others see somethings they can not explain with their knowledge so they deny the possiblity.
and know just for the fun:
the most important reason why the existance of "a god" (god as an omnipotent supervisor/creator) is put in question by scientific world is very simple:
a god is not needed! god is not needed to explain anything. if a god would exist it would render many observation absurd, up till now it is much simplier to explain the world without a god than with a god.
that's it. first principle of sience: allways prefere the simplier answer if you have to chose.
If you want to ramble on about your ANTI God rheteric then take it else where.
You have a rather large misunderstanding of scientific theory.
A scientific theory is NOT a hypothesis. A scientific theory is one that is supported by, and had continued to be supported by a large volume of evidence. A hypothesis is the logical guess and has to stand up to testing, research and eventually peer reviews before it becomes a scientific theory.
Also, science has never claimed absolute truth, if that's what you're implying. All the scientific theories we have are the models of the world that has stood up to continuous scrutiny so far. The moment some new evidence comes to light that proves otherwise, all the scientists would be happy to change their mind on their current models. They want to do so. New discoveries are what keeps them going.
I mentioned nothing anti-God. I'm simply discussing how Intelligent Design would need to have its own body of evidence to even be able to "complete", for lack of a better word, with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. It doesn't automatically qualify as the alternative. The atheist bit is in response to the question posed.
I think I'd better stop. A game forum is hardly a place for such discussion. My apologies for offending anyone.
The main problem is that most people seek to prove Creationism by disproving evolution. It's a logical fallacy.
im sorry moose if your gonna try to make a point please make a point about the topic not my spelling if you want to lecture proper spelling take it to a forum about English and how to spell correctly. And no im not mistaken about what a theory is and how it is applied to science. TOO many of you wanna be scientists think a theory which means AN IDEA means its A FACT. which it isnt. and since its only AN IDEA it means its not THE TRUTH.
Honestly I dont care if its evolution or God if he exists. But this isnt even a topic anymore this is just abunch of Evolutionists vs Creationists... its pretty sad that a discussion cant be held without those with extreme views have to come in and take a topic way off base.
Your grammatical error resulted in a sentence that meant exactly the opposite of what you (presumably) meant to say. Something like that needs to be questioned.
And as someone who has a degree in chemistry, and works with research scientists in both chemistry and biology on a daily basis, I can state with some authority that your idea of what qualifies as a scientific theory has no basis in the real world. If something has earned the "theory" tag, it is not just some wild guess someone pulled out of their ass. Yes, theories are occasionally disproven, but it takes a huge amount of new information to do so.
The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; Basicly this snake is closer to normal than every other snake on the planet.
The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;
Basicly this snake is closer to normal than every other snake on the planet.
Allegiance86, this is a mistake many people make, and you too are mistaken about how a theory is applied to science if you still think it's an 'idea' or hypothesis. A scientific theory, as SyDaemon pointed out, is not a hypothesis. In order for it to be elevated to the status of Theory (in the scientific community), it must be backed up by a preponderance of fact and evidence and withstand the rigorous testing and review of the scientific community. Disputing evolution because it's 'just a theory' is as wrong as disputing gravity or the effects of relativity because they're 'just theories' as well.
It's unfortunate that there is so much confusion about the word theory as it's used within the scientific community, but try to keep in mind that there are many words that have different meanings, depending upon the context in which they're used. When scientists refer to the theory of evolution, they are not talking about a hypothesis. Saying evolution is 'just a theory' indicates you're focussing on the wrong definition/meaning for which the word is employed.
This is clearly punishment for the snake for whatever sin it may have done. Bad snake, bad!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
